Scoop

You don't see a productivity gain with guys flying 90+ hours at straight pay? And yes, seeing some data would be good for both how VB affects us and how guys flying to FARs affect us.

You are kind of proving my point - scheduling flexibility is good even though it cost jobs when guys exceed pick up limits. On the other hand basing flexibility is bad because it costs us jobs?

You seem willing to overlook one while taking a firm stand against the other which is what I don't quite understand.

Finally how does picking up extra flying help guys get other days off? I am not against trading just exceeding pick up limits.

Scoop

notEnuf

Inertia mostly. I have adapted to our current system. These over max pickups are how common? I did it once when I swapped a 2 day for a 4 day but it gave me 2 days off I needed. I probably could have dropped and then hoped for something to come available but I put a swap in to be sure I didn’t lose pay.

Again, I don’t think over max pickups are not common enough to address. VBs on the other hand are new and are easily put down. The data on VBs will come regardless of my objections. My fear is it will morph over time into something nobody wants or intended.

Scoop

I agree that there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of VBs and I also agree with your point regarding inertia but that does not mean that we shouldn't try to improve upon our PWA in all areas.

Its not like we are ever going back to days of the "Bow wave" and LOT bidding, but why have limits on pick-ups and then allow work-arounds? If we really care about productivity and improving advancement and more WB A jobs then lets look at all productivity aspects of the PWA equally and not make a stand on some while at the same time allowing others.

Just like we improved (but did not totally eliminate) trip parking we can tighten up on our caps.

Scoop

Banzai

Shut it down.

It's something the company wanted. If they want it bad enough, they can come back and ask again during the next negotiation. But the grace period has elapsed, and I see almost no upside for us.

And, again, the company seemed to really want it.

Just shut it down.

crewdawg

I hadn't really heard of people doing this until I came to the WB. Now, I regularly hear other pilots talking about picking up to 100+ hours every month. I've even had a few guys tell me that they "don't really need vacation, because they get to much time off," so they use vacation months to get up over 110+ hours, with pickups and carryout trips... Even got an odd stare when I said I use those months to have lots of time off. Lol.

I'm all for people using the contract to their advantage, but I think a cap would be good for the whole group.

notEnuf

Because of our upcoming retirements and staffing issues that will develop, I see productivity issues in the same light as scope. Once we relinquish productivity it will be impossible to get back. The company will continue to throw money at the group to make the medicine go down. Until the economics change and the staffing crunch is relieved by reductions in flying, (I hope this is not the case for a long time and not in the magnitude it had been) this will continue.

Right now we have the power to shut down a productivity grab and should do so. The other reforms you speak of are wins the company are not willing to give up without commensurate productivity savings. I see VBs as the low hanging fruit.

Schwanker

Why not eliminate GS as well? Put all uncovered flying out for IA? No GS threshold to meet. Better yet, pay all flying above 75 as premium...

ClimbClimbNow

Some good discussion points raised.

>>Right now we have the power to shut down a productivity grab and should do so.<<

This might be an opportune time to mention that there are 4 Local Council meetings in the next ten days or so. The newest version of the MEC will meet in early March. Hmmmm.

CCN

LCAhotline

Agree. Virtual basing has been up and running at other airlines and subsequently shut down because it was not cost effective for the company.

Our crew resources newsletter said that Bos A320 would be the most reliable test to run and it would NOT BE COST EFFECTIVE.

Some of the dreamers who think that Delta wants this so that you can drive to work 3 months out of the year and spend that much more time with your family need to wake up. They want this because they are thinking two contract cycles ahead of us. They will want the ocean crossing segment language removed. They will more than likely further attempt to degrade VB by removing the ocean crossing segment from a current DL base.

We have over a dozen fleet types. Marketing doesn’t know what planes are flying where 45 days out on the domestic side of the operation. I just bought a ticket to Orlando for next month. B757 just changed to A321. 38 days from departure.

They want virtual basing for wide bodies. Domestically, they can run all the non cost effective trials they want. It doesn’t work. Usair tried it. United tried it. Virgin America did it. Regionals have tried and failed. It doesn’t save the company money and for that reason it was shut down at all of those airlines.

They’ve had over a year to set up the IT for a VB and couldn’t get that done. The grace period is over. Kill it. If they want another 1 year test period with the same conditions they can get it from us in C2020, at a cost of course. Maybe they will be ready for their test period at that time.

Peel back the layers of virtual basing and I think when you find the core (the plan 4-8-12 years from now) you will see a vastly different concept than what we “think they will do.”

waldo135

There’s no uproar over max pickup because so many CAs try to hit 90-100 hours of credit per month. Lots of guys want to yell about protecting jobs till it affects their paycheck.